🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan26.160144.63218@cc.usu.edu> sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:
>In article <1k1sf5INNbb5@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>
>  Perhaps you can apply some of that ivory tower knowledge and answer the
>real question that runs through this thread:  Just how much better than
>GCC would a compiler have to be in order for people to pay, say, $100
>for it?  Would enough people buy it to justify development costs.

	You used the wrong number here.  It is probably worth my
employers money to pay someone else $100 to just ship me a shrink-wrapped
copy of GCC.  It might even be worth $100 a machine, but this is harder to say.
If I was doing anything other then hobbyist programming on my personal
computer, it would be easily worth $100 to me to get a compiler as good
as GCC, that I didn't have to fiddle with and for which I received support.
As for justifying development costs, I can't imagine any employer who would
prefer the hours of fiddling required to get the latest version and install it.
You are forgetting that the GNU license may allow people to make copies
without paying the original author anything, but it doesn't eliminate the
the use of resources that could be spend on other tasks.  Any resource
utilization can be translated to dollar value at rates which depend on the
circumstances.

				Bill Bogstad